Cenvat credit on sales support and customer care services upheld; extended limitation rejected for lack of suppression.

Cenvat credit was held admissible on sales promotion, customer care and training services for the relevant period because, before 1.4.2011, the definition of input services covered "activities relating to business," and later the services were found to form part of the manufacturer's commercial support structure. Customer care for consumer grievance redressal was treated as linked to product support and sales promotion, and the absence of an express warranty did not break the nexus with manufacture. The extended period of limitation was also held inapplicable because the record did not show positive suppression of facts, particularly where earlier audits had not objected to the same services.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on the services described as sales promotion, customer care and training services for the relevant period. (ii) Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on the services described as sales promotion, customer care and training services for the relevant period.

Analysis: For the period prior to 1.4.2011, the expression "activities relating to business" in the definition of input services supported eligibility. For the later period, the agreement and surrounding facts showed that the services were part of the commercial support structure of the manufacturer. The customer care facility was linked to grievance redressal for consumers, which was required to be disclosed on packaged commodities under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The existence of no express warranty did not make the activity unrelated to manufacture, because a manufacturer remains answerable for product defects and consumer redressal. Such services also aided promotion of sales.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit on the impugned sales promotion and customer care services was admissible and the disallowance was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was sustainable.

Analysis: The record did not establish any positive suppression by the assessee. The departmental audit that led to the notice had occurred earlier, and no objection had been raised in prior audits on the same services. In the absence of material showing suppression of facts, the extended period could not be invoked.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The credit was held to be legally available, the demand and penalties were set aside, and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Services used for consumer grievance redressal and sales support can qualify as input services where they bear a direct commercial and manufacturing nexus, and the extended limitation period cannot be invoked without proof of suppression of facts.

---